Xenix reliability (Was: Re: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3)

[Greg Woods]

In article <5084 at rpp386.UUCP> jfh at rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes:
>In article <1498 at ddsw1.UUCP> karl at ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <152 at ispi.UUCP> jbayer at ispi.UUCP (id for use with uunet/usenet) writes:
>>>In article <1988Jul30.141708.3175 at gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, woods at gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone who thinks Xenix is reliable has NEVER seen a truely reliable system.
>
>output of `stat' from crash on rpp386:
>
>	sysname: XENIX
>	nodename: rpp386
>	release: 2.2.1
>	version: SysV
>	machine: i80386
>	time of crash: Sat Aug  6 17:38:50 1988
>	age of system: 31 days, 5 hrs., 27 mins.
>
>thirty one days looks like reliable to me.

Not to me.  Besides, how is that system used?  I had Xenix 2.2.1 (286)
stay up for 60 days, but that didn't impress me either.  That system
only did uucp, jove, and cc, etc.  It didn't do a lot of database stuff,
it didn't use IPC intensly, it didn't do high-speed communications.  The
only times I crashed it was with stupid stuff, like raw nroff output to
the console, a hard disk error during swap, and doing something weird
with IPC stuff.
-- 
						Greg Woods.

UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{ontmoh, ontmoh!ixpierre}!woods
VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h]		LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada